# Those impeachment articles are weak, dude **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 10, 2019, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647 "2019-12-10T14:36:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/101 "2019-12-11T22:54:54Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > I agree, the articles are weak. The Dem’s are scared of the Trump base and won’t fight. Scared of what? Losing their votes? ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/102 "2019-12-11T22:59:49Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > That may be a bit murky. Roberts will _preside_ over the Senate trial, but where does it say he can _compel_ the President to respond to _anything_? I’m referring to the quote and cite from post #90: “Chief Justice John Roberts could rule on the scope of executive privilege with respect to these high-ranking administration officials as well as any diplomats, national security staff or budget office staff barred up until now by the White House from providing evidence. Under the Senate rules, the chief justice’s decision would be final, subject only to a vote of the full Senate.” [https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...7ci-story.html](https://www.chicagotribune.com/opini...7ci-story.html) I don’t know how authoritative the writer is, or whether what he says would apply the president himself. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 11, 2019, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/103 "2019-12-11T23:15:49Z")
> [@](#): > > ,subject only to a vote of the full Senate." A _majority_ vote or does it have to meet the 2/3 standard? ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/104 "2019-12-12T00:04:41Z")
Majority ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/105 "2019-12-12T02:22:26Z")
> [@squeegee](#): > > Majority Precisely. Meaning the Chief Justice would only be in a position to agree with a Democratic attempt to compel Trump’s testimony if the Republicans were on board. If we got to that point, Trump is looking at a conviction. I doubt we’d ever get to that point. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/106 "2019-12-12T05:13:04Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > If the Executive branch isn’t checked by the Legislative branch or the Judicial branch, then who, exactly is it that can check the Executive? Nobody? Sounds like an argument for unchecked king-like power for the President. We don’t do that in this country. That’s my point- what if Trump just flat-out refuses via his absolute immunity doctrine? That’s when that doctrine gets tested- does Congress send someone to haul him in, regardless? Do the Secret Service agents obey Congress or the President if they have to use force? What if that happens, and the Senate STILL refuses to convict? This stuff scares me. ---
**Author:** ![cieskokid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cieskokid/32/5374_2.png) [@cieskokid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cieskokid)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/107 "2019-12-12T05:55:00Z")
> [@split\_p\_j](#): > > I agree, the articles are weak. The Dem’s are scared of the Trump base and won’t fight. They think that we can come back from the Trump presidency and want to be seen as statesmen. As I said before, there is no coming back from the fact that Trump was elected president of the US. It was over right then and there. We are a broken country and it can not and will not go back to the way it was before Trump. That’s why Biden will lose. > > The Dem’s should have went all out. The Dems massively fumbled w/the Mueller Report, which I haven’t see mentioned here. That had 10 DOCUMENTED instances of obstruction of justice by Drumpf. > **[These are the 10 episodes Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/18/18484947/mueller-report-obstruction-of-justice-summary)** > > The list includes James Comey’s firing and Trump’s changing behavior toward Michael Cohen. True, Mueller’s legalese testimony and, IMHO, much too carefully guarded “conclusions” sort of doomed the effectiveness of the Report as a tool 2remove the Doofus-In-Chief but for whatever reason Pelosi and Schumer also didn’t grab hold of it & use it as the means of impeaching the “President”. I’ll say it again - 10 DOCUMENTED instances of Trump’s obstruction of justice & they didn’t do a f\*%$kng thing with 'em. ---
**Author:** ![DesertDog](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desertdog/32/11503_2.png) [@DesertDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DesertDog)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/108 "2019-12-12T14:34:37Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Scared of what? Losing their votes? Getting shot. ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/109 "2019-12-12T14:36:29Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > Precisely. Meaning the Chief Justice would only be in a position to agree with a Democratic attempt to compel Trump’s testimony if the Republicans were on board. > > If we got to that point, Trump is looking at a conviction. I doubt we’d ever get to that point. Not all the Republicans – just 4 of them. And not to vote to convict, just to vote to hear witnesses, up to and including Individual #1. I don’t think that’s impossible. ---
**Author:** ![cmosdes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a587f6/32.png) [@cmosdes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmosdes)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/110 "2019-12-12T16:05:49Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I have to agree with you on everything except the last bit; This is not going to end well for anybody\* in the entire country\*. > > Cut to 2028: The President, who is a Democrat, sends a sack of taxpayer cash to Sri Lanka, in exchange for “documented evidence” that her chief Republican rival in the upcoming election is a satan-worshipper who murdered children. She then instructs the FBI to investigate, and come up with the exact conclusions she’s written down. She forbids anyone to cooperate with any Republicans whatsoever. If Republicans complain - tough shit. Whatever the next Democrat President does, Republicans will say it is wrong, even if it is in exact alignment with what this President is doing. Look no further than the rules the House used for impeachment hearings. The Republicans were calling them unfair and biased and these are the exact rules the Republicans came up with. Look at the duplicity of the statements made by Lindsey Graham about the purpose of the process. It will not matter one bit what this President or any other Republican did when it comes to judging future behavior of Presidents. It will only matter if that President has the right designation after their name (R or D). ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/111 "2019-12-12T17:13:32Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Could Roberts actually compel Trump to testify if the Dems call him? I’d skip work to watch that live. Trump does not have to appear to defend himself, because there is little chance of an upside in doing so. It could go bad, it could have no effect, or it could even turn out well for him (which I think is _extremely_ unlikely, hence my “little chance” comment above). But the risk of the former is too great, given that there is no way in hell enough Republicans are going to vote to throw him out. _But even if he could be compelled to testify_, he need only take the fifth. And that will be fine, because again, he’s not going to be convicted. It might make him look bad in the election, assuming he takes the fifth or makes a complete ass of himself otherwise, I suppose, but then as I’ve said before, his base is solid and he won’t be harmed by it enough to make a difference. That being said, I’d skip work for a month to watch that, and I get paid by the hour! ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/112 "2019-12-12T17:26:48Z")
> [@cieskokid](#): > > The Dems massively fumbled w/the Mueller Report, which I haven’t see mentioned here. That had 10 DOCUMENTED instances of obstruction of justice by Drumpf. I agree with this. And I think that one of the reasons brought out for not going after Trump for those things, namely that they were to hard to grasp, was ridiculous. For instance, what is hard to understand about the fact that it was wrong of Trump to try to get White House counsel Don McGahn to fire Mueller, the very person who was leading the investigation of him? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2019, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/113 "2019-12-12T23:09:46Z")
Personally, I’d like to see them list _all_ of his crimes, right down the the Misrepresentation of National Weather Service Data. Because impeachment is the only way to hold the President accountable for federal crimes. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/114 "2019-12-13T00:58:22Z")
> [@Fiddle\_Peghead](#): > > Trump does not have to appear to defend himself, because there is little chance of an upside in doing so. It could go bad, it could have no effect, or it could even turn out well for him (which I think is _extremely_ unlikely, hence my “little chance” comment above). But the risk of the former is too great, given that there is no way in hell enough Republicans are going to vote to throw him out. _But even if he could be compelled to testify_, he need only take the fifth. And that will be fine, because again, he’s not going to be convicted. It might make him look bad in the election, assuming he takes the fifth or makes a complete ass of himself otherwise, I suppose, but then as I’ve said before, his base is solid and he won’t be harmed by it enough to make a difference. That being said, I’d skip work for a month to watch that, and I get paid by the hour! Can he take the 5th? this is not a criminal trial - is there the same protection against self incrimination as in a criminal trial? And even if he can - how does it look to the country if he refuses to answer? ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/115 "2019-12-13T01:47:00Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Can he take the 5th? > this is not a criminal trial - is there the same protection against self incrimination as in a criminal trial? > And even if he can - how does it look to the country if he refuses to answer? I think it looks the same way it does now: half the country is against impeachment and wants to be able to have the option of removing him in next year’s election. It’s been this way since the Mueller investigation. Trump is openly defying the Constitution. I think he’s vexed by the possibility of actually being stabbed in the back by a GOP senator, which is a huge source of anxiety. He deals with that stress by summoning his inner rage and taking his fury out on people at his rallies and on twitter. I think in a perverse way, all of this high drama energizes him. It also makes him dangerous. ---
**Author:** ![asahi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asahi/32/8693_2.png) [@asahi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asahi)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/116 "2019-12-13T01:50:37Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Personally, I’d like to see them list _all_ of his crimes, right down the the Misrepresentation of National Weather Service Data. Because impeachment is the only way to hold the President accountable for federal crimes. I’ve wondered if it wouldn’t have been better just to censure him instead. Don’t get me wrong - he absolutely deserves impeachment more than any president in US history. But the Dems are not going to succeed with it, and I fear it will make him even stronger. I would not be at all surprised to see the DoJ start investigating Democrats just because they can. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/117 "2019-12-13T02:08:37Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Can he take the 5th? > this is not a criminal trial - is there the same protection against self incrimination as in a criminal trial? > And even if he can - how does it look to the country if he refuses to answer? Things you say can always be held against you, whether in a criminal proceeding or not, so the 5th amendment always applies (unless you’ve made some sort of deal). It should go without saying, claiming the 5th is not a good look for someone who claims to be innocent of every crime. But I expect there are many law graduates of Matlock university who would see it as total and complete exoneration, to say nothing of owning the libs. ---
**Author:** ![DWMarch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dwmarch/32/1010_2.png) [@DWMarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DWMarch)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/118 "2019-12-13T04:35:39Z")
> [@asahi](#): > > I’ve wondered if it wouldn’t have been better just to censure him instead. Trump’s been called worse things by better people. Censure would result in him putting out one half-assed rage tweet and then carrying on as if the whole thing never happened. As much of a snowflake as Trump is, his downfall won’t be because someone expressed official disapproval of his actions. He doesn’t care. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/119 "2019-12-13T07:50:34Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I have to agree with you on everything except the last bit; This is not going to end well for anybody\* in the entire country\*. > > Cut to 2028: The President, who is a Democrat, sends a sack of taxpayer cash to Sri Lanka, in exchange for “documented evidence” that her chief Republican rival in the upcoming election is a satan-worshipper who murdered children. She then instructs the FBI to investigate, and come up with the exact conclusions she’s written down. She forbids anyone to cooperate with any Republicans whatsoever. If Republicans complain - tough shit. Heck, I was picturing a president shopping around various corrupt regimes to find one that was willing to indict and request the extradition of an American who just happened to the president’s likely political rival, or just somebody the president doesn’t like. Then the president orders the State and Justice Departments to expedite the paperwork and as soon as the rival (who may be crisscrossing the country while on the campaign trail) steps into a venue that has a U.S. District Judge the president can count on, have the rival arrested, get him or her a hasty hearing before the judge and then turn him or her over to agents of Grufunkistan or whatever and hustled out of the country. Unlikely? Impossible? Give the system a few years of Trumpian degeneration and we’ll see. ---
**Author:** ![Fiddle\_Peghead](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fiddle_peghead/32/3506_2.png) [@Fiddle\_Peghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiddle_Peghead)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2019, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647/120 "2019-12-13T15:53:26Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Can he take the 5th? > this is not a criminal trial - is there the same protection against self incrimination as in a criminal trial? > And even if he can - how does it look to the country if he refuses to answer? I’m saying he can answer or not answer, they can’t make him say anything specific. And it won’t matter anyway, because we all know how the vote is going to go, for the most part at least. I suppose they’re might be a few defections from one side or the other. But I would guess to some that Trump saying, essentially, “I refuse to answer that question because this whole thing is a sham, and you can go fuck yourself” would make him look great in the eyes of many people. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/those-impeachment-articles-are-weak-dude/844647.md?page=7)